Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

we didnt give much thought to TMs and brands becoming gTLDs because those 
parties, for the last two years, have uniformly said that new TLDs
are unwanted and unnecessary.

they didnt abstain from comment (for competitive reasons).   They actively 
challenged the need and utility for new TLDs.

I'd hate for this group to tie itself in knots trying to create a solution for 
people who didn't ask for one

Richard



On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> Your putting words in my mouth, but I'm sure that's not intentional ;)
> 
> My concern is that all registries have the same rules regarding the use
> of accredited registrars, carving out one business model over another
> certainly could create unfair competition.  Whatever this WG recommends
> it should 1) follow the policy we spent 2+ years developing, and 2)
> consider ICANN's committment in section 2.4 of the RAA to abide by the
> policy.
> 
> As I said, I wish we had given more thought in general to allowing TMs
> and Brands to become gTLDs. My concerns with that have more to do with
> the evident power of the IP lobby within ICANN's processes than anything
> else. My personal belief is that it will come back and bite us all in
> the ass later. But that's really not in scope for this WG.
> 
> 
> Tim  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 4:15 pm
> To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Tim,
> 
> So if Google wants to give out for free .BUZZ domain names to all Google
> subscribers for free through its registrar exclusively, you view that as
> unfair competition, although the domain name is merely ancillary to the
> other services that they provide?
> 
> It seems like GoDaddy is more focused on entrenching the existing
> distribution model which has served your company very well, how about
> letting some innovation in the marketplace.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 4:53 PM
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> Whatever the new models are, one should not be given an advantage over
> another. The policy laid out a set of principles based on years of
> community debate and consensus building. Based on that, discussing when
> registrars *should not* be used *is* out of scope. Perhaps the Council
> needs to discuss and clarify.
> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:15 pm
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I do not beleive that this can be unilaterally ruled out of scope.
> 
> I think that it is key to any VI solution and without it, the status quo
> as defined by the Board might as well remain in place as that only
> affect business arrangements as opposed to affecting innovative new
> models for TLDS.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 5 Apr 2010, at 15:52, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Tim,
>> 
>> I agree that this concept not be pursued right now at all, as it is a
>> distraction from the policy the GNSO recommended to the Board, and
>> which the Board approved at Paris.
>> 
>> I propose that we form a "group" around the proposition that whatever
>> "single registrant" is or are (as it may be more than one distinct
>> thing), it is out of scope for the policy recommendation on changes,
>> if any, to the registry registrar separation business rule that has
>> existed up until the Nairobi Surprise.
>> 
>> Eric
> 
>